|
Antennas led astray
John Smith I wrote:
The laws of mathematics, physics and the sciences exist in an absolute form, somewhere ... Too bad we haven't discovered them yet. :-) -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Antennas led astray
Jim Kelley wrote:
If you feel it is more useful to make measurements using standards from another reference frame, then I wholeheartedly encourage you to do so. You missed the point, Jim. Calculating the age of the universe, ever and ever more accurately, with a standard that may be continuously changing is technical insanity. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Antennas led astray
John Smith I wrote:
wrote: ... There is no such thing as an absolute frame of reference, or much of anything else absolute except the value of pi. There is no absolute quanta of time, length, mass, flux density, energy, power, angular measure, force, or speed. Jim: Well then, we can safely assume you have no belief in God! And, certainly not a God prone to playing dice in the dark!--but, still able to follow some rules ... (thanks for that one Cecil) Non sequitur. Well then, that leaves the "Man is God" theory, we will just make up the rules as we go along ... I have tried that with women--I find most of them even have rules I must obey ... Non sequitur. You do babble a lot. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Antennas led astray
Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote: If you feel it is more useful to make measurements using standards from another reference frame, then I wholeheartedly encourage you to do so. You missed the point, Jim. Calculating the age of the universe, ever and ever more accurately, with a standard that may be continuously changing is technical insanity. You missed the point Cecil. Time never changes in our frame of reference. The second is always the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Antennas led astray
Jim Kelley wrote:
The point you're missing is that the standard isn't changing with respect to the frame in which the observations are made. The standard is not changing with respect to a subjective frame of reference but it is changing with respect to an objective frame of reference? What is wrong with this picture? Ignorance of the objective frame of reference is no excuse, IMO. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Antennas led astray
Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote: The dollar is an arbitrary unit so why strive for accuracy in your paycheck? How much did an ounce of gold cost in dollars one year after the first super nova? That is the point that you are missing. But, I know you are just playing word games here. Nope, you completely missed the point. Our seconds are just as arbitrary as our dollars. Our dollars didn't exist one year after the first super nova and neither did our seconds. How many times have I said standards are arbitrary, Cecil? That the standards are arbitrary is irrelevant. That the human defined unit of time called the second didn't exist before humans defined it is irrelevant. Time existed before humans and will continue to exist after humans are long gone. There is no such thing as a quanta of time. The human defined unit of time called the second is simply a way to measure time. The universe existed for a very long time before humans came along and defined a unit of time called the second and put a number related to those units on it's age. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Antennas led astray
Cecil Moore wrote:
... You missed the point, Jim. Calculating the age of the universe, ever and ever more accurately, with a standard that may be continuously changing is technical insanity. Cecil: This has become an impossible argument. And, Richards' comment about paying some attention to staying on topic caught my attention. My point is, with our present state of knowledge and understanding of such things as time and the "mysterious 377 ohms" (not EVEN to mention the permittivity of space) our antenna designs and advancements have stagnated. It is hard to prove a negative, as you have stated before. So, let us not move forward to prove, rather to investigate--to leave no stone unturned (not to mention to go where no man has gone before!) Or, look at Roys' program EZNEC. The antenna, by present understanding of the mentioned "standards", has become ALL TOO PREDICTABLE. (not to offend Roy, he has done an EXCELLENT job and he is an asset) It is at the point where we begin to dare advance that progress killing statement, "All is known, all has been discovered." When things become this predictable, when advancements are up against the wall and stalled, isn't it time to go back and look at these "truths" we began with in the first place? I would like to think a new discovery is but around the corner ... we may not do it, but we can create a forum where it will happen. What kind of men would allow this to exist? Warmest regards, JS |
Antennas led astray
Cecil Moore wrote:
The standard is not changing with respect to a subjective frame of reference but it is changing with respect to an objective frame of reference? What is wrong with this picture? Skewed perspective of the artist. 73 de ac6xg |
Antennas led astray
wrote:
The human defined unit of time called the second is simply a way to measure time. The universe doesn't age one second with each passing second of subjective-arbitrary Earth time so what good is any estimate of the age of the universe? A scientist living somewhere else in the universe will get an entirely different result. One of the cornerstones of science is that if the results are not reproducible everywhere at every time then they are invalid. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Antennas led astray
Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote: Time never changes in our frame of reference. I agree with you. Time never changes in our subjective frame of reference exactly as the center of the universe never changes in the 17th century Catholic Church's frame of reference. Word salad. There is no such thing as a "subjective frame of reference". But our subjective time frame of reference is no more valid than the Catholic Church's subjective space frame of reference was - and maybe even less so. Word salad. There is no such thing as a "subjective frame of reference". You might even be the reincarnation of one of the Catholic priests who condemned Galileo to house arrest. :-) You never tire of bringing up the Catholic Church and Galileo, do you? Sorry, I don't know much about the Church other than they screwed Galileo and you can shake it twice to clean the bore, but shake it thrice and you've sinned some more. Anyway, it appears that either: A. You don't understand what a frame of reference means in physics. or B. You're bored and want to argue for it's own sake. or D. All of the above. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Antennas led astray
John Smith I wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: ... You missed the point, Jim. Calculating the age of the universe, ever and ever more accurately, with a standard that may be continuously changing is technical insanity. Cecil: This has become an impossible argument. And, Richards' comment about paying some attention to staying on topic caught my attention. My point is, with our present state of knowledge and understanding of such things as time and the "mysterious 377 ohms" (not EVEN to mention the permittivity of space) our antenna designs and advancements have stagnated. Yeah, so what? The lever hasn't improved in thousands of years other than in the use of new materials. The same can be said for cannon and revolver design since about 1900. When was the last time you heard of advancements in the design of milling machines, lathes, fork lifts, the CRT, and any number of things? Technologies mature, get over it. Oh, and 377 Ohms and the permittivity of free space are not "mysterious" to the educated. snip remaining -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Antennas led astray
Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote: The human defined unit of time called the second is simply a way to measure time. The universe doesn't age one second with each passing second of subjective-arbitrary Earth time so what good is any estimate of the age of the universe? A scientist living somewhere else in the universe will get an entirely different result. One of the cornerstones of science is that if the results are not reproducible everywhere at every time then they are invalid. Nonsense. The universe most certainly does age one second with each passing second within the frame of reference where the second was defined. If a scientist living somewhere else in the universe uses the same frame of reference, he will get the same result. If he uses a different frame of reference, he will get a different result which can be converted to our frame of reference and the result will be the same. GPS satellites are in a different frame of reference but manage to provide results that agree with our frame of reference. What I really don't understand is why understanding frames of reference is so difficult for many evidently otherwise intelligent people. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Antennas led astray
|
Antennas led astray
|
The Awesome Razor
No reason for saying "percieved". It was a very real and obvious
problem. On Jan 23, 3:56 pm, "art" wrote: The reason for the original design was because in rarified locations such as Quito, Equador the yagi produces excessive corona at the element tips. The quad solved the perceived problem. I say perceived because the corona will eat away at the yagi antenna element lengths , In a hazardous area the quad is more suitable than any other antenna. Art Rick wrote: On Tue, "Yuri Blanarovich" K3BU wrote: Let's not forget this 3D champion that decimated Yagis and other inferior contraptions by the antenna gurus and professoirs and scientwists. :-))) 73 Yuri da BUm da father of Razors Hey Yuri, Is it true, I've heard you can't operate a Razor over dry land, or where there is flamable material nearby because of the fire hazard? How about we put one up over a salt marsh, would that be safe enough to not endanger the population? Rick K2XT- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text - |
Antennas led astray
Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote: One defines a standard and works with the standard. The point is that our "standard" second changes with velocity and we have no idea what our velocity is or was or will be. We are defining our average velocity as a constant without any evidence whatsoever to support that definition. That's no different from defining our average position as the center of the universe. You really need to try and get your head around relativity. And understand that what you are worried about doesn't matter a whit. However, this will likely degenerate into one of your famous "Cecil against the world" ****ing matches as usual. tom K0TAR |
Antennas led astray
John Smith I wrote:
wrote: ... What I really don't understand is why understanding frames of reference is so difficult for many evidently otherwise intelligent people. Garbage in, garbage out ... A frame of reference which is in error is subject to that rule ... end of story. Babbling word salad. Then again, there are those without a snowball's chance in hell of ever understanding what frame of reference means. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Antennas led astray
|
Antennas led astray
John Smith I wrote:
wrote: ... ever understanding what frame of reference means. Nope, sounds like my goldfish in the bowl would satisfy some here ... Sounds like you either need more education or less alcohol/drugs. Maybe both. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Antennas led astray
|
Antennas led astray
John Smith I wrote:
wrote: ... Sounds like you either need more education or less alcohol/drugs. Maybe both. Jim: Well, gee, good thing we don't go on sounds, because you sound like the MOST stupid idiot I have ever had the displeasure to chat with, but hey, I continue to give you the benefit of the doubt :) Hang in there buddy ... Everything I've posted about time and reference frames can be trivially verified. If you want to remain an ignorant, arm waving babbler, that's your choice. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Antennas led astray
|
Antennas led astray
wrote:
The universe most certainly does age one second with each passing second within the frame of reference where the second was defined. *Only* within the frame of reference where the second was defined which didn't exist for the first 2/3 of the history of the universe. What I really don't understand is why understanding frames of reference is so difficult for many evidently otherwise intelligent people. My point exactly! -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Antennas led astray
|
Antennas led astray
Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote: There is no such thing as a "subjective frame of reference". :-) ;) Regards, JS |
Antennas led astray
Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote: The universe most certainly does age one second with each passing second within the frame of reference where the second was defined. *Only* within the frame of reference where the second was defined which didn't exist for the first 2/3 of the history of the universe. Babble. The universe has aged one second with each passing second within the frame of reference where the second is defined whether or not there was anyone around to define a second and will continue to age at that rate in that frame whether or not there is anyone around who could take notice of the fact. And since the frame of reference is a defined thing and not a physical reality, it doesn't matter if the Earth continues to exist or not either. You seem to have a lot of difficulty with this concept. What I really don't understand is why understanding frames of reference is so difficult for many evidently otherwise intelligent people. My point exactly! So your are saying you don't understand what a frame of reference is? It is getting kind of obvious. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Antennas led astray
Cecil Moore wrote:
... Cecil: I feel like a damn idiot, this guy has been at this for sometime (this is from 2004), bet Richard has been having a laugh, look at the following: Richard Harrison wrote: Richard Clark wrote: "This paradox (differing light intensities in various directions) was solved by?" I have not seen that question before, but will speculate that Edwin Hubble deserves the credit as he used "red shift" in the light from other galaxies to show that they are speeding away from us and our galaxy. In fact, they are accelerating so that the farther the galaxy is away from us, the faster it is moving away. From continuous acceleration, the distant galaxy will eventually reach the speed of light. Then, light from the distsnt galaxy won`t reach us because it will tag along with the fast moving galaxy. There may be a time shortage too as Einstein has shown time slows as a thing moves faster. Hubble has also shown that the Doppler effect would shift the frequency lower as velocity of the retreating thing increases. Shift the frequency low enough and the wave is no longer described as light but may be classified as a millimeter radio wave. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI To be accererating, there would have to be a force . Where would this force be coming from and what pray tell is directing it? The speed of light is a constant in all reference frames. If a light source were to be moving at the speed of light away from an observer, an impossiblity in itself, the light would still be moving at c towards the observer. -- Jim Pennino Remove -spam-sux to reply. Regards, JS |
Antennas led astray
Cecil Moore wrote in news:aqfuh.4372$O02.4066
@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net: wrote: The universe most certainly does age one second with each passing second within the frame of reference where the second was defined. *Only* within the frame of reference where the second was defined which didn't exist for the first 2/3 of the history of the universe. Actually, the second is defined as a certain exact number of oscillations of a cesium atom in the same reference frame as the observer. The transforms of general relativity permit us to predict the behavior of such atoms (relative to our own observation) in other reference frames as long as we have a good mathematical handle on their velocity and gravitational warp. -- Dave Oldridge+ ICQ 1800667 |
Antennas led astray
John Smith I wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: ... Cecil: I feel like a damn idiot, this guy has been at this for sometime (this is from 2004), bet Richard has been having a laugh, look at the following: Richard Harrison wrote: Richard Clark wrote: "This paradox (differing light intensities in various directions) was solved by?" I have not seen that question before, but will speculate that Edwin Hubble deserves the credit as he used "red shift" in the light from other galaxies to show that they are speeding away from us and our galaxy. In fact, they are accelerating so that the farther the galaxy is away from us, the faster it is moving away. From continuous acceleration, the distant galaxy will eventually reach the speed of light. Then, light from the distsnt galaxy won`t reach us because it will tag along with the fast moving galaxy. There may be a time shortage too as Einstein has shown time slows as a thing moves faster. Hubble has also shown that the Doppler effect would shift the frequency lower as velocity of the retreating thing increases. Shift the frequency low enough and the wave is no longer described as light but may be classified as a millimeter radio wave. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI To be accererating, there would have to be a force . Where would this force be coming from and what pray tell is directing it? The speed of light is a constant in all reference frames. If a light source were to be moving at the speed of light away from an observer, an impossiblity in itself, the light would still be moving at c towards the observer. The part about force is badly worded, I admit. However, are you saying the speed of light is not constant in all reference frames? If so, you are a damn idiot. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Antennas led astray
|
Antennas led astray
John Smith I wrote:
... You are, NO JOKE, the real thing! Regards, JS However, should I have been mistaken, we will continue our chats, but at a later date ... Goodbye :) JS |
Antennas led astray
John Smith I wrote:
wrote: ... The part about force is badly worded, I admit. However, are you saying the speed of light is not constant in all reference frames? If so, you are a damn idiot. Even the speed of sound is fixed in our atmosphere (approx. 770 mph at sea level.) A moving object emitting sound can only "jam" the beginning of the sound wave towards its end, effectively "shortening" that sound wave and raising the pitch--the opposite can also occur. Pure babble. Sound is a mechanical effect and requires a progation medium. Light is an electromagnetic effect and does not require a medium. One has nothing to do with the other. We call this the doppler effect, it can also occur with light (has a fixed speed in the ether) and yes, even our rf transmissions. More babble. That is not the doppler effect and there is no ether. I found that old piece of text when checking up on exactly what type of "discussions" you engage in; what I was pointing out with it is--YOU ARE A TRUE TROLL! You are, NO JOKE, the real thing! And you are a true, babbling, ignoramus. Lest someone believe your ignorant babble: Speed of light and reference frames From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light "One consequence of the laws of electromagnetism (such as Maxwell's equations) is that the speed c of electromagnetic radiation does not depend on the velocity of the object emitting the radiation; thus for instance the light emitted from a rapidly moving light source would travel at the same speed as the light coming from a stationary light source (although the colour, frequency, energy, and momentum of the light will be shifted, which is called the relativistic Doppler effect). If one combines this observation with the principle of relativity, one concludes that all observers will measure the speed of light in vacuum as being the same, regardless of the reference frame of the observer or the velocity of the object emitting the light." Doppler effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect "The Doppler effect, named after Christian Doppler, is the apparent change in frequency and wavelength of a wave that is perceived by an observer moving relative to the source of the waves. For waves, such as sound waves, that propagate in a wave medium, the velocity of the observer and the source are reckoned relative to the medium in which the waves are transmitted." Relativistic Doppler effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativ...Doppler_effect "The relativistic Doppler effect is the change in frequency (and wavelength) of light, caused by the relative motion of the source and the observer (like in the regular Doppler effect), when taking into account effects of the special theory of relativity. The relativistic Doppler effect is different from the true (non-relativistic) Doppler effect as the equations include the time dilation effect of special relativity. They describe the total difference in observed frequencies and possess the required Lorentz symmetry." Speed of sound http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_sound "The speed of sound is a term used to describe the speed of sound waves passing through an elastic medium. The speed varies with the medium employed (for example, sound waves move faster through water than through air), as well as with the properties of the medium, especially temperature. The term is commonly used to refer specifically to the speed of sound in air. At sea level, at a temperature of 21 ?C (70 ?F) and under normal atmospheric conditions, the speed of sound is 344 m/s (770 mph)." What is sound http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound "Sound is a disturbance of mechanical energy that propagates through matter as a longitudinal wave." What is light http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light "Light is electromagnetic radiation with a wavelength that is visible to the eye (visible light) or, in a technical or scientific context, electromagnetic radiation of any wavelength." Anything else you would like explained, like where rain comes from? -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Antennas led astray
wrote:
... Pure babble. Sound is a mechanical effect and requires a progation medium. Light is an electromagnetic effect and does not require a medium. One has nothing to do with the other. Anyone who has ever completed a high school physics course knows better ... That is not the doppler effect and there is no ether. Only an a person wishing to be viewed as an idiot would make that statement and truly believe it ... And you are a true, babbling, ignoramus. Lest someone believe your ignorant babble: Speed of light and reference frames From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light Yep, I am total agreement with MOST of that, however, you interpretation is in SERIOUS error, quit obviously ... NOW ... Goodbye, AGAIN, JS |
Antennas led astray
wrote:
And since the frame of reference is a defined thing and not a physical reality, it doesn't matter if the Earth continues to exist or not either. You seem to have a lot of difficulty with this concept. A frame of reference based on 1/86400 of one rotation of the Earth which is only 1/3 as old as the universe? A frame of reference based on the oscillation frequency of Cesium when Cesium didn't even exist before the first super nova? I'm not having difficult with the concept. I'm just wondering why anyone would accept such a flawed concept. The 17th Century Catholic Church's frame of reference was earth-centric. So is our time frame of reference. Both are equally valid. -- 73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
Antennas led astray
John Smith I wrote:
wrote: ... Pure babble. Sound is a mechanical effect and requires a progation medium. Light is an electromagnetic effect and does not require a medium. One has nothing to do with the other. Anyone who has ever completed a high school physics course knows better ... I see you snipped the references which showed that it is true. That is not the doppler effect and there is no ether. Only an a person wishing to be viewed as an idiot would make that statement and truly believe it ... I see you snipped the references which showed that it is true. And you are a true, babbling, ignoramus. Lest someone believe your ignorant babble: Speed of light and reference frames From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light Yep, I am total agreement with MOST of that, however, you interpretation is in SERIOUS error, quit obviously ... NOW ... I see you snipped the references which showed what a babbling, ignorant fool you are. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Antennas led astray
John Smith I wrote:
To be accererating, there would have to be a force . No, just a flawed frame of reference. If the length of a second is changing, something outside that frame of reference can appear to be accelerating when it really isn't. -- 73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
Antennas led astray
Dave Oldridge wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote in news:aqfuh.4372$O02.4066 *Only* within the frame of reference where the second was defined which didn't exist for the first 2/3 of the history of the universe. Actually, the second is defined as a certain exact number of oscillations of a cesium atom in the same reference frame as the observer. The same problem still exists. The cesium atom didn't exist before the first super nova. How can the time be calculated between the Big Bang and the first super nova if cesium didn't exist? -- 73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
Antennas led astray
|
Antennas led astray
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:10 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com